Jump to content
Dennis

Your Focusing experience for 75/90 lenses (OVF)

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

1 hour ago, pippy said:

A phenomenally spectacular image which is a bit soft is a million times better that a bit-of-a-dull image which is perfectly sharp...

Oh yeah 🙌

1 hour ago, Gobert said:

I have no problems in Focussing and I do not understand why people have them. 
I have 75, 90 and 135. And even with 135 I have a Hit Rate of 90-95%

I was just curious why many people are saying that is "hard" to focus on tele photo lenses. 95% is a great number.

1 hour ago, pippy said:

I suspect that Dennis is more concerned about the speed needed to nail focus accurately wide-open

Correct! I mean, decide the right exposure and be able to focus well, is pretty basic. My point is about speed. A fraction of a second could make a huge difference. That's why I'm asking of there are or not some kinds of limitations that stop your speed. From me, this is mandatory. Specially if one day I'll sell my Nikon D5 to switch 100% to Leica 🤔

Philip, thank you so much for your words 🙏

47 minutes ago, Steve Caddy said:

I’ll add a second vote to the Summarit 75 being surprising easy to focus

This is what I want to know, thank you. If some lenses could be faster than others. The 75 Summarit seems to be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

Practice ! And probably with a certain lens... I confess my fault in this : having lot of lenses (I'm not the only one, ok... 🙄), i tend to use them, too... and that's a problem, I feel; in my case, expecially  for the 90s... "oh, today I want to take the Summicron"... "oh well, it's some time I don't take my nice Elmarit-M..." "oh... Macro Elmar 90 is so compact to carry..." "well... to variate a little, today I could take the Summarit 75..."  😄 . Pleasant... but no good to really master  RF focusing... 😒 : probably stick with ONE 90  would be much better... anytime I take the Summicron and take a shot at f2 I am concerned.... it's so critical... surely I'd be  a better photog if I'd decide "THIS is my 90 to use, period". But... (and isn't so different for 50s 😉)

Very happy for you that you have many lenses, I only have two at the moments hahah. But I perfectly understand your point. If I want to travel light, I could bring my Zeiss 2.8/35 which has an amazing performance, but with very small weight. If I need to shoot wide open, maybe I use the 35 CV Nokton 1.2 III, etc etc. 

In my first days with Leica, I was not understanding why people have many lenses of the same FL ... But I do understand now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s worth noting I think that the best M for 135mm is the M3. The largest focus patch, the largest 135mm frame line area, the longest EBL, it all adds up to the best M with the 135mm (and 50, and 90) [using OVF].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dennis said:

 

Hi everyone.

These days I'm reading a lot about lenses with FL longer than 50mm, and I always find a common point: with 75/90/135 lenses is hard to focus on RF. Now I'm asking you: Why?

Is it because of the short focus throw range? Is it because it is hard to "confirm" the focus with small frame lines? Is the 75 easier than the 90?

My longest lens is a 50 Cron, so I never tried how hard can be. Is there a big difference between 50 and 75? Please enlighten me with your experience and tips

P.s. Of course, I'm talking only about to focus with the OVF, not EVF allowed in this post. 😉

I used 90 Elmars f4 on LTM, film M and digital M. No idea from where this myth about hard focusing comes from.

 

On M8:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 105012 said:

It’s worth noting I think that the best M for 135mm is the M3. The largest focus patch, the largest 135mm frame line area, the longest EBL, it all adds up to the best M with the 135mm (and 50, and 90) [using OVF].

Good to know!

23 minutes ago, Ko.Fe. said:

No idea from where this myth about hard focusing comes from.

More than a myth, it looks like a fact for many forum users, reading on the forum. But I'm glad that many many are not experiencing any difficult, except for the obvious smallest DOP and maybe the short-throw focus, where the focus the picture can be very slightly out of focus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dennis said:

Good to know!

More than a myth, it looks like a fact for many forum users, reading on the forum. But I'm glad that many many are not experiencing any difficult, except for the obvious smallest DOP and maybe the short-throw focus, where the focus the picture can be very slightly out of focus. 

Let me guess, images are not sharp? I think many of those are forgetting relation between shutter speed and focal length. And how flash works :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, stephan54 said:

I use an Telyt apo 135 on my M10 and find focussing harder because of the framelines being about the same as the focussing patch.

What does the size of the framelines have to do with the focusing difficulty?

I think you may be confusing correlation with causality. If you are shooting with a 135, it is a hard-to-focus lens (for some) regardless of whether the camera has 135 framelines, or none (e.g. Leica M2). Or whether one is using the internal lines or an external 135 finder (1.00x magnification).

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/SHOOC

_________________________

Personally, I find a 135 to be the easiest M tele to focus much of the time. Because 1) it is limited to f/3.4-f/4.0 in any event (the old f/2.8s are a special case, with their own magnifier built-in), and 2) because the longer subject distance for the same framing means the DoF increases a bit locally.

For example, in a full-face portrait, a person's nose-tip is, let us say, 2cm in front of their eyes.

With a 135 shooting from 2 meters, that depth is only 1% out of the subject plane (the eyes).

With a 50 lens shooting from 0.7 meter (for the same magnification,) the tip of the nose is now nearly 3% closer than the "in focus" plane, and often more noticeably out-of-focus.

Personally (again), I prefer the 1980s Mandler teles (75 Summilux, 90 Summicron, 135 Tele-Elmar/Elmarit) for focusing with a rangefinder. They retain some spherical aberration, and that tends to smear out a single "sharp" focal plane into a series of "soft-sharp" stacked focal planes, when shooting wide-open.

Which makes their practical "depth of apparent sharpness" a little larger than a more ideal, perfect lens. Given the limitations of RF focusing, I prefer to have a "broad" image plane, like the bright white areas in the top and bottom of these cross-section images, rather than a more finicky 'ideal" image plane like the center example. (image linked from wikipedia).

Squint a bit to see how much wider the "approximately-sharp" white range is.

Note - shooting into the 10-20 micron depth of film gelatin has a similar "wider-range of almost sharp" effect, compared to a nearly dimensionless digital image plane.

Edited by adan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zitat

What does the size of the framelines have to do with the focusing difficulty?

Adan wrote.

The framelines perhaps not (not worded precisely), but if you want to align a straight line, the area outside of the focus patch is smaller and gives less information.

Especially with a tree which is 30 metres away, the focussing is a bit harder. Everyone has a different idea about what lens is easiest to focus.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a Summarit 75 - it was easy to focus. Sharp lens.

I have an old Elmar 90 - its a little tricky at f4, but I usually shoot it at f5.6-8 anyway.  I had an Elmarit-M 90/2.8 which was very difficult to nail focus on, but I suspect the lens was out of adjustment. I've read enough similar reports to my experience with that lens to think it might have been a "problem" lens for Leica. That one got sold...

I would love a 135, but none of my cameras have the frame lines (nor for 75 either, which is why I sold my Summarit 75). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I few months ago I did a set head and shoulder photos on an M8 with my 90 f2.8 Elmarit. Mostly at f4, most were on the money but a few were a little soft, it seemed to be the folks who didn't want to be there, the DOF is slim and they were squirming a bit, others sat down and were there those were easier to focus and the images showed it. Nothing was way off. If you are using it on the street f5.6 and 8 can still get some separation. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tommonego@gmail.com said:

If you are using it on the street f5.6 and 8 can still get some separation. 

 

That's correct. As indicative values, If I use a 90mm for street or landscape, my f/stop could be in the 4-8 range ... Environment portraits, 2.8-5.6 ... But for portraits with shallow DOP, I would rather use 2-4 thank 5.6-8.

Does it make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Dennis said:

 

Hi everyone.

These days I'm reading a lot about lenses with FL longer than 50mm, and I always find a common point: with 75/90/135 lenses is hard to focus on RF. Now I'm asking you: Why?

Is it because of the short focus throw range? Is it because it is hard to "confirm" the focus with small frame lines? Is the 75 easier than the 90?

My longest lens is a 50 Cron, so I never tried how hard can be. Is there a big difference between 50 and 75? Please enlighten me with your experience and tips

P.s. Of course, I'm talking only about to focus with the OVF, not EVF allowed in this post. 😉

My 90mm cron has longer focus throw than my 50 lux. 

When you say "hard to focus" are you referring to wide open aperture? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jaeger said:

My 90mm cron has longer focus throw than my 50 lux. 

When you say "hard to focus" are you referring to wide open aperture? 

 

I was just reading many comments on the forum (in mix threads) about people not having sharp focus on tele photo lens, for a few reasons. So i was just curious to know which the reason was. For example to manually focus on a 90 APO at f/2, could be more difficult than to a shorter lens. But maybe I misunderstood "the hard to focus" part of some comments. I thought there were some limitations on tele photo lenses. Maybe a mix of factors.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Dennis said:

For example to manually focus on a 90 APO at f/2, could be more difficult than to a shorter lens.

This is generally true. For a given aperture, the fixed magnification ( a permanent 28mm vield of view, cropped with framelines) and fixed precision of a rangefinder's viewing means they have more trouble focusing higher-magnification, narrow-DoF lenses (50mm+, but really it's a continuum - with an RF, a 21 is easier to focus than a 35 is easier to focus than a 50 is easier to focus than a 90 is easier to focus than a 135....assuming the same aperture is used).

This, plus the small size of long lens framelines, is pretty much exactly why the original Visoflex contraptions, and later, dedicated 35mm Single-Lens Reflex (SLR) cameras, were invented.

The first "pro" SLR (Nikon F) was introduced in 1959, and within a decade (Vietnam War), most working journalists were carrying a mix of Leicas (for lenses 21-50mm) and Nikon Fs (for lenses 85mm, 105mm +). Larry Burrows, David Douglas Duncan, others - it's easy to find vintage photos of them draped with multiple cameras to handle different lens ranges.

https://www.icp.org/browse/archive/constituents/larry-burrows?all/all/all/all/0

In War Without Heroes, Duncan describes his "carry" in Vietnam as two M3D(uncan)s, custom-made by Leica, with 28 and 50 lenses - and a Nikon F with a 200mm.

Scroll down to "at work" picture of DDD in Vietnam: https://alchetron.com/David-Douglas-Duncan

Now, as someone who got into Leica partly to avoid carrying an SLR as much as possible, I have taught myself some tricks of the trade to use the 75s, 90s, and 135s with a fairly high success rate. But it takes more thought and care to rangefinder-focus a 90mm f/2.0 than a 50mm f/2.0 - that is built into how lenses behave. It is "normal."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, adan said:

but really it's a continuum - with an RF, a 21 is easier to focus than a 35 is easier to focus than a 50 is easier to focus than a 90 is easier to focus than a 135....assuming the same aperture is used).

Exactly! And this due to many reasons.

47 minutes ago, adan said:

The first "pro" SLR (Nikon F) was introduced in 1959, and within a decade (Vietnam War), most working journalists were carrying a mix of Leicas (for lenses 21-50mm) and Nikon Fs (for lenses 85mm, 105mm +)

I don't own any lens longer than a 58mm (I really love this Nikon wonder, I use it a lot). And I really think that the most RF Leica potential, as you say, it's between 24 and 50.

Thanks for the links! 

Anyone interested on exchange a couple a Leica M glasses for a beast Nikon D5?  😂 ... 🤭... 🤔 ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, adan said:

really it's a continuum - with an RF, a 21 is easier to focus than a 35 is easier to focus than a 50 is easier to focus than a 90 is easier to focus than a 135....assuming the same aperture is used).

This, plus the small size of long lens framelines, is pretty much exactly why the original Visoflex contraptions, and later, dedicated 35mm Single-Lens Reflex (SLR) cameras, were invented.

Yes, nicely articulated. You can literally see the margin for error getting compressed in the focal range markings on the lenses as they get longer.

Without viewfinder magnification, you’re also having to compose the frame in a much tighter space too. The SLR was a great solution.

Longer lenses demand a lot more focused concentration on a rangefinder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Steve Caddy said:

Longer lenses demand a lot more focused concentration on a rangefinder.

Good words. This is another kind of feedback I read in the forum. Of course we can all be able to focus on longer lenses, but it's not so easy as it is other lenses, on as on a SLR, where you have the preview of your FL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Here is a lens I'm looking at right now - (only Adan knows) - it's a 90mm Summarit 2.4 - shot at 250 iso 1/125 at F4 - This little guy is a Social Distancing Resistor - with lemon gelato:

 

 

Edited by OR120
sp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, OR120 said:

it's a 90mm Summarit 2.4 - shot at 250 iso 1/125 at F4

Still nice bokeh at f/4. Is this lens?

Edited by Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy